June 19, 2009

Iran elections: fraud claims and counter-claims analyzed

Out of boredom, I thought it would be fun to keep track of the various claims about how the elections in Iran were supposedly stolen or fraudulent, versus their counter-arguments - please add to the list if you can, since I haven't been keeping track of all the claims and counter-claims.

[As a side note: Before you automatically and unthinkingly assume that there was election fraud in Iran, ask yourself: WHY? was Mousavi, the opposition leader -- and a former Prime Minister and very much a supporter of the revolution -- such a threat to the system that they had to resort to election fraud? No, sorry, he isn't.]

CLAIM 1: MOUSAVI LOST IN HIS HOME DISTRICT - SUSPICIOUSLY.

"It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense." (Juan Cole)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality." (Leveretts)

CLAIM 2: AHMADINEJAD WON IN TEHRAN - SUSPICIOUSLY.

"Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment." (Juan Cole)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

Ahmadinejad won the province of Tehran, not the city of Tehran. Anyway, he was the mayor of Tehran and won there in 2005 too.

CLAIM 3: THE STRAIGHT-LINE GRAPH

"Ahmadinejad's numbers were fairly standard across Iran's provinces. In past elections there have been substantial ethnic and provincial variations." (Juan Cole)

"Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own." (Tehran Bureau)

"They didn't even attempt to disguise the fraud. Which, to me, tells me they panicked. This graph is a red flag to Iran and the world." (Andrew SUllivan)

COUNTER-CLAIM

The apparently extremely strong relationship is mostly an artifact of the exceptionally simple fact that as you count more votes, both candidates' totals will tend to increase. (Fivethirtyeight.com)

[T]hese figures, though they may seem eerily consistent at first glance, are actually just what we would expect. That's the nature of large batches of data, governed by what's called the Law of Large Numbers: Averages of widely varying quantities can, and usually do, yield results that look almost perfectly uniform. Given enough data, the outliers tend to cancel one another out. (Jordan Ellenberg)

CLAIM 4: SECURITY CRACK-DOWN

"If Ahmadinejad had really won, then why the crack down on dissidents, cutting off international communications and filtering Facebook? "

COUNTER-CLAIM:

This is more of a rhetorical question than an argument. Perfectly valid reasons exist for security measures following a hotly-disputed election especially when you add in the tense international situation, what with talk of "regime change" and all. Add rioting to the mix too.

CLAIM 5: AHMADINEJAD's BAD ECONOMIC POLICIES

Ahmadinejad is responsible for bad economic policies that have driven up inflation, increased unemployment, increased poverty, and so people could not have possibly voted for him.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"The belief that Iran suffers from dire economic conditions is one of four myths circulating about Iran's macroeconomic performance. Iran's economy has actually performed well in aggregate terms, with a moderate rate of growth in the last ten to fifteen years, including healthy GDP and per capita growth in investment. In the last three years, Iran's actual growth rate has averaged 5.8 percent." (Kelly Campbell, U.S. Institute of Peace)

"Lucky for Mr. Ahmadinejad, there are good reasons to doubt that poverty has been on the rise...Another comparison, based on the absolute poverty lines defined on the basis of the $2 per day standard, shows the opposite: that poverty rates have declined slightly during 2005-06." (Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Brookings Institute)

"There is no shortages of complaints one can have about Iran’s economy (high youth unemployment, high inflation, and stagnant productivity, to name a few) , but a low standard of living is not one of them. "(Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Brookings Institute)

"The International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession). A significant number of Iranians — including the religiously pious, lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners — appear to believe that Ahmadinejad’s policies have benefited them. And, while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible." (Leveretts)

It is impossible to have counted all the votes in the short time between the closing of the polls and the announcement of Ahmadinejad's victory.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"During the election, there were about 47,000 polling stations for voting. For each station, every candidate was allowed to have a representative present to oversee the process... When the voting ended at 11 pm, they immediately started counting. Once they had the final tallies at each station, the representatives were made to sign off on them, and the numbers were fed into a centrally computerized system where the tallies were collected.

Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very small number of ballots that can easily be counted in a short period of time." (Huffington Post interview with Iranian cleric)

"The counting mechanism is simple: Iran has 47,000 voting stations, plus 14,000 roaming stations that travel from tiny village to tiny village, staying there for a short time before moving on. That creates 61,000 ballot boxes designed to receive roughly the same number of votes. That would mean that each station would have been counting about 500 ballots, or about 70 votes per hour. With counting beginning at 10 p.m., concluding seven hours later does not necessarily indicate fraud or anything else." (Stratfor)

CLAIM 7: EXCESS VOTERS

A spokesman for Iran's authoritative Guardian Council has admitted that voter turnout in the country's July 12 presidential election exceed 100 percent in as many as 50 cities

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"Voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute." (Press TV)

"In an interview with the special news section of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting's [state broadcaster] Channel II on Thursday night, [Iranian Interior Minister] Sadeq Mahsuli said that the increase in the votes in some of the country's cities against the limit of the eligible voters is quite natural and it has also happened in the past. He added: In 48 cities, the number of voters was higher than the number of those eligible to vote and this was due to employment or education related emigration and holiday trips.

He pointed out that in some of these cities where there were surplus votes, the votes for the rival candidate was higher than the elected candidate and added: The number of voters in Shemiranat [area in north Tehran] were thirteen times higher than the eligible voters in this region and one of the candidates achieved votes twice of the elected candidate and the figure of thirteen times higher participation by the people on holiday in this region appears quite normal. The interior minister stated that the number of eligible voters was announced based on the places in the country where birth certificates were issued and added: This is in spite of the fact that a great percentage of people have left their place of residence because of employment, education and holidays and even in the previous elections, we had up to 800 times the number of eligible voters in some cities. Mahsuli explained that on the whole, 184,734 people out of 100 per cent of the eligible voters have voted over the limit in 48 cities and specified: In a province such as Yazd, at least 30 per cent of the population, meaning more than 37,000 students and military garrison personnel, consists of non-native individuals whereas the surplus voters in this region only totalled 515." (Resalat, Tehran, in Persian, 27 Jun 09, p. 2, BBC Monitoring Service Jun 30 2009)

CLAIM 8: STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

A statistical analysis of province-by-province voting in Iran’s June 12 presidential election makes a compelling case for wide-spread fraud in the vote that returned conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and touched off days of bloody protests in Iran. (Christian Science Monitor)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"Recently, spot analyses by scholars from the University of Michigan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs suggested that this year’s election results are out of line with previous presidential elections. These analyses compare this year’s results with the first round of the 2005 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani outpolled other candidates to move into a runoff. Viewed through that prism, Ahmadinejad’s 2009 tally seems inflated.

But the comparison is structurally flawed. It is tantamount to arguing that, because Barack Obama won 38 percent of the vote in a competitive, multicandidate caucus in Iowa in January 2008, it is implausible that he could have won 54 percent of that state’s vote in the two-person general election in November. A more appropriate comparison for this year’s results in Iran would be the second round of the 2005 presidential election, when Ahmadinejad trounced Rafsanjani." (Leveretts)

The University of Michigan study relies on Benford's Law but according to the Carter Center which has monitored more than 70 elections around the world:

In short, Benford's Law does not generally apply to electoral data and even in cases where we suspect that it might apply, we find that it does not. All in all, Benford's Law seems like a very weak instrument for detecting voting fraud. There are many reasons to believe that it does not apply to electoral data, and empirical tests suggest that deviations from the law are not necessarily indicative of fraud.

CLAIM 9: KARROUBI's LOW VOTES

Karroubi, one of the candidates, scored very low in the polls -- lower than expected.

COUNTER-CLAIM:

He also admitted on TV during his debates with Ahmadinejad to accepting $300,000 payment from Shahram Jazayeri, a shadowy figure involved in a number of recent financial scandals in Iran. (PressTV)

"In his letter released on Saturday [20 June], Musavi had cited seven accounts of abnormalities in the election process and asked the Guardian Council, the body tasked with overseeing the election, to "cancel the election nationwide."

Musavi said the "sealing of ballot boxes before the voting in most polling stations, shortage of ballot papers and limited voting time" were among the reasons he objected to the results of the election." (Press TV website, Tehran, in English 1807 23 Jun 09)

COUNTER-CLAIM:

"The Interior Ministry however rejected the claims, saying that his letter 'contains apparent contradictions' and includes general cases which 'lack concrete and legal evidence.'

The ministry added that according to the election law, the ballot boxes have to be sealed in the presence of the representatives of the supervisory board before the voting officially starts.

It added that the ministry, however, invited Mr Musavi's representatives to be present and almost all of them were present when the ballot boxes were sealed.

On the shortage of the ballot papers, the ministry argued that it was 'impossible to estimate the exact and correct number of voters in a town or a polling station.' " (Press TV website, Tehran, in English 1807 23 Jun 09)

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

By Goli Orod
Sun Jun 21, 2009
This was originally posted on the Daily Kos

Last week Iran held a historic election during which nearly 80 percent of the electorate voted and an overwhelming majority reelected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Defeated main challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi immediately cried foul contesting the election results. His claims of a rigged election are based on non-credible and unreliable claims that a few of his monitors were not allowed in the polling stations, and other anecdotal evidence at the disposal of losing candidates in any democratic election. Since the revolution, Iran has consistently held free and fair elections among the candidates vetted by the Guardian Council and international observers have rarely brought allegations of electoral fraud against any Iranian election. There is no reason to believe this one is any different. Nonetheless, the Guardian Council is reviewing the complaints submitted by the losing candidates and has announced that it will recount ten percent of the overall ballot boxes.

On June 12, 2009, an article in the Washington Post describing a pre-election rally reported that "a long column of provincial, working-class Iranians, clad in black and walking in flip-flops, streamed into a highway underpass, heading for a reelection rally for President. Standing on a high ledge safely out of the way, a group of cosmopolitan youths looked down at the crowd of mostly out-of-towners. "Go back to the zoo!" shouted a teenager with gelled-up hair and a green T-shirt, a sign of support for Ahmadinejad's main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi." This teenager represented the face of Mr. Mousavi’s supporters to the Iranian people. A face that the majority of Iranians (and not just the working class) not only do not identify with, but deeply resent— a few thousand upper class and upper middle class urbanites still harboring the decadent, elitist, racist, and class-oriented values of the Shah’s era passed down to their generation from their parents and grandparents. Free Marketer Mousavi himself hardly concealed his contempt for working class Iranians as evident from his outspoken disdain for Ahmadinejad’s redistributive economic programs. A position that did not sit well with the urban and rural working class families who have benefited from these programs, be it a small handout or a new road or school.

In response, millions more than expected turned out all over the country to vote for President Ahmadinejad and express their deep antipathy for Mr. Mousavi and his supporters. This resulted in polls staying open passed the scheduled closing time and the need to print additional ballots culminating in a resounding victory for the incumbent candidate.

Many in the Iranian-American community, including Iran experts Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, Karim Sadjadpour of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hooman Majd, author/blogger/Khatami admirer, and Reza Aslan, author/blogger, wasted no time in joining the hopelessly biased US media in their proclamations that the Iranian election was rigged. Particularly perplexing was that they did so immediately after the election results were officially announced and without any substantiated evidence. They based their "total disbelief" in the possibility that President Ahmadinejad could have won reelection fairly and by such a wide margin on the one-sided and constant coverage by the US media of the several thousand upper class and upper middle class Tehrani (People from Tehran) Mousavi supporters who took to the streets in the few days leading up to the elections. Immediately after the elections Mr. Parsi announced that Mousavi could not have possibly lost in his hometown Tabriz. This uninformed speculation was instantly picked up by the Obama Administration and reproduced in an official statement. The US administration might not know better, and the US media does not want to know better, but Mr. Parsi should be aware of the massive and overwhelmingly enthusiastic crowds gathered for President Ahmadinejad in Tabriz and the President’s deep and close ties with the Azari community.

This irrational approach to the Iranian election results is tantamount to predicating one’s prediction of the winner of a US presidential election on a strong and vocal show of support for a party candidate in New York City, and then expressing disbelief when the opposing candidate wins in all or the majority of the states, including New York and Idaho. This approach is even more absurd in light of the fact that up until the very last few days prior to the demonstration of these upper class urbanite youths many of the same experts and their American compatriots were pontificating extensively on the unlikelihood of beating President Ahmadinejad because of his grassroots rural and poor urban support. Did this widely acknowledged grassroots support likely leading to an Ahmadinejad victory evaporate overnight? Did it simply vanish to give way to a small yet highly vocal and Internet savvy segment of Tehran’s population who purport to represent 47 million strong electorate, paving the way to Mr. Mousavi’s God-given right to the Iranian Presidency?

One week later and the Iran experts have been joined by an entire spectrum of Iranian expatriates, from socialists, to nationalists, to monarchists, to former mediocre Tehran University literature professors turned Neocon puppets, to postcolonial intellectuals. Fueled and spun by an array of pro-Israel bloggers and pro-Israel media working around the clock, this expatriates’ new-found alliance is being skillfully manipulated to ensure that a segment of the Iranian society imposes its tyranny of the minority through a Twitter coup on the Iranian nation. (Or, at the very least, completely discredit a democratically elected government.) A coup to remove an elected president and replace him with a draconian war era prime minister turned Bishop Tutu of Iran responsible, among other atrocities, for guiding hundreds of thousands of young Iranians into the trenches of war and to their martyrdom. (Oddly enough, he is doing this again 20 years later by proclaiming his preparedness for martyrdom, yet sending young Iranians to the streets of Tehran to theirs.) Anyone who thinks the 46 million strong Iranian electorate would be forced into a tyranny of the minority orchestrated by the absurd solidarity between corrupt mullahs, a group of Internet savvy urbanite youths, US and Israel, and Pro-Israel media, and their unsuspecting "Iranians-United" does not have the slightest understanding of the Iranian society and its people. There will be no repeating of 1953 Iran, Chile, Algeria, or West Bank and Gaza in Iran.

The Iranian people have had four years to get to know President Ahmadinejad. During this time, at least nearly 24 million of them have learned that, notwithstanding the disappointment they might have brought on the Iranian expats and their cohorts, thus far, this president is the most compassionate, uncorrupt, dignified, modest, and courageous leader their nation has known in a long time. Iranians overwhelmingly voted for Ahmadinejad because he speaks for their nation—a nation that has endured 2500 years of domestic repression and foreign hegemony. He speaks truth to power on behalf of the people, to imperialists, occupiers, and corrupt mullahs alike. The extraordinarily vocal young upper class urbanites did have a following too after all; their candidate received 13 million votes.

The reason Iranians, from Tabriz to Rafsanjan (the birth place of Mousavi supporter and the most corrupt Iranian mullah, Rafsanjani), voted for President Ahmadinejad was beautifully summed up in a handmade campaign sign held by a young supporter—under the colors of the Iranian flag and a picture of the President; simple yet profound it read: Range Iran, Range Mardom, Rang Ma, (the Color of Iran, the Color of the People, the Color of Us!) That is how a majority of Iranian people (mostly working class) voted for President Ahmadinejad—he is the color of Iran.

The youths and their followers who have now resorted to rioting and violence should instead accept that the Iranian nation has spoken. They should stop the ugly hatred epitomized in the comment by the young gelled man, reevaluate their strategies and tactics, and reach into their souls. If they do so, who knows, maybe their candidate would win next time. For now, there is no recasting of Iranian people’s democratic will by violence or "civil disobedience."

I suggest you change your name from Cyrus to Cyrus baseeji! You are now officially an stooge of Seyd Ali Khameni in NYC. I agree with the above poster that called you a useful idiot for the fascist Islamic Repugnant of Iran!

[Cyrus Responds: had you read my post you'd see that "statistics" prove no such thing, and that the statistical study you cite is faulty. Have a nice day.]

"The day will come 'Cyrus' when Islamics like you will hang from the trees by your turbans as the revolution of the People of Iran against Arab-lovers like you will overtake your pathetic tyrannical government. Mozdoor Kaseef! We know how to deal with the likes of you. Until then you better watch out because we know who you are and where you live."

This post by a Mousavi supporter pretty much sums up their position. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the numbers (no matter how hard they try to contrive stories).

[Cyrus Replies: I don't think this guy is a Mousavi supporter. At best, these people see Mousavi as a foil and a "useful idiot." They'll ride his back for as long as they can, since they lack legitimacy of their own.]

jim please do no try to reason the action of the islamic republic thugs by making a comparison. it doesn't matter what usa does if people riot about obama. killing people who simply voice their opposition in a peaceful manner in an inhuman savage way, in any circumstances, should be condemned by anyone. arresting people and charging them for illegal demonstration is different but slaughtering them with knives, chains, guns, metal pipes daggers and axes is a crime for any reason.

this behaviors are not surprising by islam the history of islam is violent starting from the fucking "prophet" mohammad who was a pervert who married a 7 years old girl.

To Jim: I appreciate that you (and so many others) do care! As for your comment:

1. If you think the protesters protested to garner world-wide support, you are wrong. They protested to get their votes back. Only some (and not all) protesters used western media to publicize their demands (again, not to garner support). BTW, what type of support could they possibly ask for? Western interference is not even on the wish-list (and Obama has been wise enough to read Iranians' stitched lips on this issue).

2. On the same line, Mousavi and his team never directed their concerns to western media and politicians. This was a smart move, because they could have easily been accused of espionage (and capital punishment by Iranian law). (Some of my friends wanted to translate the documents, but I am not sure if it went anywhere.)

3. On the election day, one of the major command centers and also the central headquarters of Mousavi team were raided and documents/computers were confiscated "to prevent collection and reporting of the evidences of fraud". [page 14 of the 27-page report by Mousavi]. Also, some of the high-ranking Mousavi supporters were arrested (I am not sure if this was during or after the raid).

The SMS service (text messaging) and telephone were the only lines of communication for Mousavi's team. Despite the fact that the head of election committee (of interior ministry) rejected any possibility of SMS blockage on the election day, the SMS service was blocked on the day of the election (and continued for two weeks). Also, telephone lines of the "committee for protection of people's vote" (Komiteye Sianat az Ara) were deactivated during the final hours of election and during vote-counting.

Therefore, it was practically impossible to document any infractions and come up with numbers of violations. Yes, somebody could have put together a list of violations, or contact the inspectors directly. But guess what?! People with direct contact to Mousavi are arrested. ("two layers of Mousavi's network, as his wife claims).

Since the election, some people have anonymously spoken about the violations on the election day. (e.g. this link is an unofficial interview with a computer operator. He claims to be Rezaei supporter).

4. About videos/pictures of violations: I have seen a couple of videos showing people behind closed doors, complaining that they were not allowed to vote because of senseless alibies. I have also seen two videos showing some basiji-looking guys writing on the ballots. What else could be filmed? (that the inspectors are out of the counting room?! (well they are out of that room everyday). Besides, the videos you have seen are taken by ordinary people. If you shoot a video of voting booth and send it to BBC or CNN, you can be easily charged with espionage. (capital punishment, remember?)

5. Only some people have access to satellite TVs/internet (maybe 35%). Many of them are incapable of using it for this cause due to filtering and noising.

Many of those who can find a way to bypass filtering, don't dare to contact the outside world, as the government has easy access to their IPs through ISPs.

6. The interior ministry (as organizer), the guardian council (as supervisor), the supreme leader (who has the final say) were all aligned with Ahmadinejad.

They also had the support of all TV and Radio stations, and most of the newspapers (one of the major opposition newspapers was banned the day (?) before the election, and many of them are still being published with blank sections!).

They also had the support of Basij and Sepah (as means of protecting their big-lie coup government). If I were Ahmadinejad, I would have been tempted to do what he did, wouldn't you?

7. NEW. This is my own speculation. One of the few tasks in which the government of Ahmadinejad has been successful, is the "Privatization Act", based on which the government has to privatize its properties and industries. Sepah (THE major supporter of Ahmadinejad) has been given many deals. I speculate that Sepah has organized this coup to warrant its success in getting the deals. Could this be the reason? Maybe!

Now, do you get a sense of why the current government is a "coup" government? If yes, welcome to the club! If no, try to convince yourself that in a country where 53% of people (63% of the 84% turnout) are in favor of Ahmadinejad, people feel so cheated that they pour into the streets, despite the shootings and batons.

One the other hand, a true popular government should have let people to demonstrate peacefully. (do you remember the silent protests few days after the election?). A true popular government would not have violently dispersed the crowd on the third day after the election.

To a real cyrus: The question of election legitimacy seems critical. If the election results were not valid, then the demonstrators are challenging an unconstitutional fraud. If the election results were valid, the violent protests (there were many on youtube) were an attempt to destabilize a legitimate democratically elected government. In essence, an attempt to overthrow the will of the people, a coup. No government in the world will fail to attempt violence in order to stop a coup. Consider what the government would do if you threw Molotov cocktails at a government building, regardless of where you live. Consider what the US government would do if a million protesters descended on Washington DC, some of who changed "Death to Obama", some of who attacked police, some of who burned city buses, and some of who tried to storm a national guard armory. I think the response would be extremely violent. Lastly, I don't think anyone should be ashamed of trying to investigate the truth.

To Amir: The protesters in Iran have used western media to garner world wide support for their cause. They have totally failed to provide specific details of their complaints in English. I have read countless times of how "many" Mousavi personnel were denied access to the polling station (a right under Iranian law). This seems to be a major complaint. If it occurred, why not give a specific number of violations? Why have we seen no video supporting this claim, it's obvious that cameras are plentiful among the opposition. Did no one have the foresight to film this clear violation of Iranian law, which occurred "many" times? Maybe answers exist to these questions, but the opposition has so far been incompetent at detailing anything (at least in English). Thanks for providing information though, I wish more would do this.

To Aslan: You seem to support the opposition. The opposition seems to yearn for greater freedoms. Cyrus has simply exercised his freedom of speech. I have yet to read any of his words that seem to intimidate or stifle the rights of anyone. You threaten him with death, in an apparent attempt to stifle his right to speak. Doesn't this make you a threat to freedom, not a champion of the cause?

To everyone: Since I'm American, this entire issue is none of my business. I hope the majority of Iranians can resolve this issue, for both Iran and its people.

The day will come "Cyrus" when Islamics like you will hang from the trees by your turbans as the revolution of the People of Iran against Arab-lovers like you will overtake your pathetic tyrannical government. Mozdoor Kaseef! We know how to deal with the likes of you. Until then you better watch out because we know who you are and where you live.

[Cy responds: 30 years of living in Camp Ashraf and sitting in exile in LA under the photos of His Imperial Majesty hasn't taught you people anything, nor have you accomplished a single positive thing for the people of Iran. You're still a bunch of thugs who now exploit the name of democracy simply because it is convenient. So bite me.)

To "the real Cyrus": You shouldn't be accusing others that just have a different point of view. Listen and argue, if you can!
To "Cyrus": Did you get a chance to look at the 27-page rebuttal document prepared by the greens? I am assuming that you can read Farsi. If you don't, let me know and I'll translate if for you.

Please consider that the organizers and the body who oversaw the election process were all supporters of Ahmadinejad. It is almost impossible for the greens to provide hard "evidence of election fraud" when their hands are tied. Their evidence consists of bits and pieces from here and there. The latest evidence, which is not documented in the 27-page document is that the voting papers shown on tv (during re-count) were all new and unfolded. I re-visited the pictures and videos of the election to see if people fold their votes before putting them in the boxes. Guess what, I have not seen even one person putting in his/her vote unfolded. Even Khamenei himself folded his vote. As I said, this is not a hard evidence, but adds to the preponderance of the conclusion (and a fraudulent election).

The issue is no longer the "lack of hard evidence" as there are lots of bits and pieces. The issue is the fact that the current government suffocates anyone who provides such bits and pieces, let alone cooperating in collecting hard evidence.

[Mousavi and the others participated in the same system that you're claiming was fundamentally unfair to start with. So, what was their problem? Was it only unfair if they lost? And the "evidence" of the "unfolded ballots" was made up by anonymous commenters on various blogs who until now can't actually present any evidence of fraud. Incidentally, the photos of those "unfolded ballots" clearly show that they're actually voting rolls, not ballots.]

cyrus you should change your name to mahmud or a name that is not persian. obviously you don't care about your people. even if the election was fair and everything was legal and honest the regime changed that by brutally hitting people on the street and shooting at young innocent men and women. no government should be recognized as legitimate when they treat their own people the way Islamic Republic did or still does. even if i had voted to ahmadinejad, i want my vote annulled. no one can kill my brother and sisters so brutally and claim to be my elected representative. why do they take away the injured (even from hospitals)? why do they torture and rape the detainees? why they don't let people have a decent burial for their sons and daughters? i can't believe a human being could do thing this regime does. i always hated shah but in comparison to this regime he was a saint (i still hate a monarchy, don't get me wrong)

who cares what the election claims or counter-claims are. write something that you can be proud of. write something that few years from now, when you look back, you won't feel ashamed of. be the voice of people. government have the state media as their voice already. be the voice of those who can't be heard.

(Cy responds: Don't presume to lecture other people about morality. People like me have seen and heard enough to know what the world is like. Regardless, the fact is that there's no evidence of election fraud in Iran. Deal with it.)

Behrooz: It was very clear that Khamenei supported Ahmadinejad from the very beginning. Khamenei's last week's Friday Prayer leaves us with "no doubt" now. This is a violation of Iran's law. It also questions supreme leader's fairness, and therefore, his qualification for the job, and therefore the election itself that he managed. This may not be an evidence of rigging, but certainly adds to its preponderance.

Cyrus: Mousavi did complain about the ban on his inspectors, both at the time when he proclaimed victory, and also officially after the detailed stats were released. As for the 50% of the inspectors that were allowed in, I am not sure whether they were allowed in from start to end. (I have not seen any details on that)

The following files [in Farsi] detail the infractions that occurred prior to, during, and after the election. (The two files and a cover letter were prepared by the greens and were submitted to the GC before the final approval of the election)

Extraordinary post and tremendous comments! In particular, I would like to ask Aussiewoman and Amir if they would be so kind as to provide the sources for their fascinating details - either here, on my own blog (shadowedforest.blogspot.com) or privately to me at william.deb.mills@verizon.net. Thanks to all of you.

I just want to say up front that I believe the election was overall fair.

Here are some extra information:

1) According to the electoral President, Daneshjou: He said that there were 60 million ballots printed. And 2 million extra were printed on the day of the election. Maybe that debunks the shortage of ballots claim.

2) About the claim that "50% of the observers were not permitted" to observe. The Guardian Council has reported a total of only 646 total violations from the 3 candidates. This includes complaints of time constraints, ballot shortages, lack of access for representatives, etc. So with 47,000 total observers, the alleged lack of access is a small percentage.

3) I am not sure about this. But I dont even remember seeing Karoubi being polled at over 5% in any pre-election polling in 2009.

4) Question: Was there only 1 ballot box per polling station? (just want to know for clarity)

i tried to make the fallacy of the "linear" relationship clear here . I'm no expert in dealing with the statistics but what was being said was like a joke to my engineering commonsense.

also,

amir: I hope you are not delibrately trying to misinform. e.g., iran has had these 5-year plans since the end of the war and near the end of each one the government in place is asked to prepare the next. just like ahmadinejad ran on a platform that was prepared during khatami's second term (and there lies much of the criticism against him by the bureaucrats in iran for deviating from it)

At least 14 officials from different agencies monitor each election booth, these include executive branch team, local governors rep, guardian council team, police monitor, interior ministry inspector, and reps from each candidates team. Counting is done in the presence of all these officials then 5 "form 22" are filled in which includes number of ballots for each candidates, number of invalid ballots, and the number of unused ballots left at the polling station. All 14 officials sign the forms. One copy of form 22 is placed in the ballot box which is then resealed, others go to the governors office. After this a form 28 is filled and sent to the interior ministry for tallying. The ballot box and form 22 remain in case of any disputes. All ballot papers have serial numbers and province indicator.

With these checks in place how exactly is someone meant to cheat by 11 million votes?

Other points
1. Karroubi vote drop from last election is explained by his performance in the debate with Ahmadinejad who got Karroubi to admit on live TV that he took a huge bribe from a convicted felon (although he claimed no favours were given in return). This explained Karroubi's luxury mansion in North Tehran which Amadinejad insisted on mentioning.

2. On Mousavis poor vote in Tabriz: (from Robert Fisk article where to talks to an Iranian friend):

"The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

"You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."

Even assuming that it is true that half of the opposition inspectors were denied access as Amir claims, that's more than enough inspectors to catch any fraud. Indeed, lets remember that Mousavi never complained about this as evidence of fraud and even proclaimed himself the winner of the elections.

Counter to claim 4: To me, the crack down seems to be incoherent, and disorganized. Not a good argument. If they expected riots, they could have let the opposition start a fight, and then swiftly won that fight. One example, leave one Basij base poorly defended. Let the protesters take it, get a few weapons. Being prepared, this would all be filmed, and then you hit the base hard, killing or capturing all in one swift raid. Now you have documented proof of a violent insurrection. Even those who vote for the loser in an election rarely support violent insurrection. End of opposition.

Additional data:
1) No incumbent president has ever lost an election in Iran. Incumbents enjoy an incredible advantage in every democracy.
2) The percentage of votes he won are only slightly higher than his percentage in 2005, when he was far less well known, and running against a previous two-term president. I'm not sure, but before 2005, had Rafsanjani ever lost an election?
3) Nobody is talking about nationalism. If a voter is nationalistic, who would they prefer? Ahmadinejad has butted heads with the US and Europe, and has not backed down. Some would argue this hurts him, but I would think many would respect this. With the US and Europeans occupying 2 neighboring countries, ignoring this fact seems folly.
4) Now people are talking up the Chatham House study. I think there are many problems with this study. They looked at the first round 2005, ignored the second round 2005. They used 2006 census data. I'm going out on a limb here, there are more people in 2009 than in 2006. I think Iranians can register when they vote, this could easily change the numbers. They seem to ignore, that the electorate is 4 years older. Some 2005 voters are now dead, and some 2009 voters were not of age in 2005. I'm not a statistician, so I cannot evaluate their methods, but nobody seems to want to wait for anyone qualified to do so. Great application of the scientific method there!

Why does every argument for the obvious conclusion (that the election was rigged) seem to include such huge problems? If no solid argument for how the election was rigged can be constructed, it seems reasonable to assume that it wasn't rigged. With so much brain power supporting the rigged conclusion, and since no such argument is forthcoming, I'm tempted to conclude that this vote was not rigged. So far, I've resisted, but it is so tempting...

The counter claims are extraordinarily weak in my view. They are not at all realistic.

Anyone who follows election results and swings would strongly disagree that it is possible for Ahmadinjad to have done so well in the home district of Mousavi.

The mood of the people was not with Ahmadinejad at all. It was quite the opposite.

Also with regard to Rezi and the votes that disappeared. He conducted his own research, asking for those who voted for him to send their IDS. The difference was about 200,000 more IDs sent than the votes he received. I think that is very strong evidence of vote rigging.

Well, there is one important reason missing:
The interior minister, the GC, the government-owned media, and the supreme leader were all in favor of Ahmadinejad. They had the motive, the tools, and the authority to mess with the results. The only inspection-mechanisms other candidates had were their inspectors, 50% of whom were not permitted into the polling stations (at least not from start to end).
Preponderance of the evidence tends towards a fraudulent election result:

____Before election:
* Couple of months ago, Khamenei asked the government to plan for the 5 years ahead (as if he knew Ahmadinejad will be re-elected)
* Just before election, Sepah issued that any colored-revolution attempts will be "killed at embryo" (from start).
* Sepah conducted anti-riot maneuvers just before election (unprecedented)
* Reformist newspapers were banned just before election
_____During election:
* About half of the inspectors were denied access
* Kayhan newspaper posted on its websites that Ahmadinejad has won with 24 million. That was before the polling boxes even being closed/counted.
* Some of the inspectors have reported that they received a call from interior ministry, telling them that there is no need to count the boxes; Ahmadinejad has won with a large 70% margin.
_____After election:
* The number of votes for Rezaei decreased at one point, during the counting period. Although it is claimed that it was a typo, the percentages and other numbers were consistent with the typo!)
* The total number of votes were reported first, then the numbers per province were published, and after a couple of days, numbers per box were reported. (this is in wrong wrong order. Again, unprecedented)
* Khamenei endorsed the results before the GC. (again, unprecedented)
* If the results had made sense, people shouldn't have spontaneously poured into streets to protest. (specially if the president elect has 63% of the 85% that took part in the election).
* If the results were not rigged, the government souldn't have crushed the peaceful protests (peaceful and silent protests are different that riots, as suggested in your CC#4)
* Karroubi's votes are far far less that his votes 4 years ago. It doesn't make sense. Even far less that his newspaper circulation!
* Rezaei has a list of confirmed voters that is more than his number of votes
...
and the list goes on ...

Ahmadinejad: A study in obstinacy"Iran has often been at the receiving end of ultimatums from foreign powers," said Cyrus Safdari, an independent Iranian analyst. "The politicians who stood up to these ultimatums are treated as heroes, and the ones who caved are still considered to be traitors."

ASIA TIMES: Funding regime change Madame Rice has a really bad sense of timing in seeking to 'reach out to the people of Iran' - who don't need $75 million to watch 'a few bad apples' from the US torturing people in Abu Ghraib."